It seems to me that moral dilemmas direct us to what's convenient and what's favorable for us, not to what's moral. Your example raises the questions: WIll I get away with sacrificing the child? and What's better, a dead child or a doomed train "load of people"?. I used the expression assessing the morality of in a sarcastic way, I don't see morality as quantifiable or as inherent to any course of action.

Better public relations, you mean. Yes, you're right, reputation can be gained or can be lost through admission of wrongdoing, but in the case of those individuals, I really think they're better off denying any unethical behaviour.

is acting ethically according to their ethics, but not according to mine, which is why I want him incarcerated — andrewk

You make incarceration sound arbitrary.

I really think we can identify a common moral framework. For example, what's costly and unproductive is definitely immoral, I don't see how that can be argued against.

Do I know I know, or do I just know, or do I have justified true belief and so I know? — mcdoodle

Doubt and certainty are compatible.
I'm uncertain of my knowledge, yet I rely on it to come to a conclusion regarding it.
To know something, you need to doubt your own certainty.

Do I do good to do good? Or do I do good to look good? — mcdoodle

Good from whose perspective?

What did I do wrong? Nothing. I behaved unethically, for ethical reasons. — Khassoggi

Nonconformist.

Moral dilemmas? Those trick us into assessing the morality of the options they give, instead of helping us distinguish the moral from the immoral. Similary, I don't think we can morally judge Khassoggi on the basis of legality or any other kind of agreed conformity.

Individuals like this never want to admit unethical behaviour.. — geospiza

I think that's reasonable, they would have nothing to gain from it.

At least they're sincere.

On suicidal thoughts. "Don't have them." — Benkei

Oh, really?
I've said I'm too arrogant to have such thoughts and consider it a proper philosophical response.

What about:

Stuff you'd like to say but don't since this is a philosophy forum. "Worthless."

If someone were to answer your every question with the same sentence/phrase/word e.g. ''I am Groot'', what would go through your mind? — TheMadFool

I'd think their statements could be infered from their very nature and the situation they are in.
I'd view it as a commitment to authenticity relying on mutual understanding for communication.

Given that the ultimate goal is to be as happy as possible for as long as possible — AXF

And this follows from? I think you're delusional... I'd argue anyone who refuses to live in the present is.

This:

So with eternal life — AXF

Doesn't follow from this:

the human body should have no expiry date. — AXF

Learn the difference between expiration and termination.

He's touchy when it comes to his political persuasion so tread carefully.

What if I don't agree with your definition of belief??? — some logician

Then:

That's your opinion. Go ahead! — some logician

belief: confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof

That's saying you don't need science to believe. But you say there's no reason for belief without scientific explanation, so you limit rationality to science and don't give any reason yourself for why you do that.

Michael also challenged that view of yours but you just dismissed what he said as an opinion, instead of addressing it.

Michael is right. Also you don't understand what beliefs and opinions are.

Then why don't you be clear on what statements you have made that you consider illogical, but not nonsensical. — Harry Hindu

I wasn't arguing about any of my statements but about:

Personally, I'm with Doestovesky's Underground Man: "I admit that twice two makes four is an excellent thing, but if we are to give everything its due, twice two makes five is sometimes a very charming thing too." — Noble Dust

There's nothing nonsensical in this quote.

The propagation of human life is founded on the strength of the impulse for sex. — sackoftrout

Do you mean to say that without the impulse for sex, there would be no propagation of human life?

Morality isn't based on arbitrary concepts like murder and level of conciousness, it's the other way around. Morality is concerned with consequences, yet you never consider the implications of your thesis. Let me give you an extreme and forced example: if we judge who has the right to live based on level of consciousness and studies that say humans under the age of 4 lack consciousness are proved, it wouldn't be immoral to kill toddlers according to your so-called moral argument.
Your argument falls because it is based on faulty assumptions, like the one I quoted above.

contraceptives — TheMadFool

Which pro-life supportes are also against.

Recently I've began to consider the real possibility of a presence out there that's larger than myself. I think everyone is constantly searching for — stonedthoughtsofnature

Not me, that would conflict with my arrogance.

How are you supposed to describe what "sour" tastes like to somebody who hasn't ever tasted anything sour? — stonedthoughtsofnature

Say it tastes like excitement.

God is an experience that you need to have to understand what it is. — stonedthoughtsofnature

Then stop trying to explain irrationality in a rational way.

but it's a collective sentience that brings everything together. — stonedthoughtsofnature

Like a universal interconnectivity?

Because that understanding is gradual, that's what I meant. or maybe it really is not, maybe we just didn't figure out philosophy itself yet.

Why do you think you've challenged my beliefs? You think you've made me doubt them? — Agustino

No, it's not the same thing. Beliefs can be challenged only when the one holding them refuses to doubt them.

I'm just saying a gun is valuable because it's useful.

Of it being True, what can have greater value than truth? — Question

Usefulness?

2+2=5 is nonsensical. — Harry Hindu

But there's no argument against that in this thread.

Let me make it simple. If you commit a logical fallacy you would effectively be illogical. — Harry Hindu

In other words, when you aren't conforming to reason and logic, you are effectively useless and meaningless. — Harry Hindu

Not true:

logic: a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty

logical: capable of reasoning or of using reason in an orderly cogent fashion

illogical: devoid of logic

If you accept these particular definitions, you come to understand that one must conform to logic and reason in order to commit a logical fallacy which is called like that for this very reason. Then what's irrational is that which completely ignores logic and reason but that doesn't make it nonsensical because sense may still be derived from it.

You made no argumentation and you're still the one complaining.
What makes me a sophist? What do you expect from a discussion?
Clarification would indeed help the discussion and you avoid it. Case in point:

It's crystal clear that you're making absolutely no effort to engage in discussion — Agustino

That's just a wild claim and so is this:

I had something valuable — unenlightened

Which is continued from yet another such claim:

Owing to the categorical stupidity of this declaration — unenlightened

Also cherrypicking and nitpicking don't make for strong arguments but silly ones:

Take a look at 3. (from dictionary .com)
To take their example, one might owe one's fame to good fortune, but one does not have either the obligation or the means to repay it. — unenlightened

From the same dictionary:

indebted: committed or obligated to repay a monetary loan; obligated for favors or kindness received

Agustino's comments:

you didn't create yourself nor are you responsible entirely for who you are - so you have a duty to the world (which gave you everything) — Agustino

The world owes you nothing because it has already given you everything. — Agustino

But one can't have a duty to good fortune, in fact the context in which the example is used as a phrase is when its subject is precisely deem not worthy which just strengthens my argument that:

If everything I have the world just gave me, then I have no individual worth and therefore my input is not even worthwhile — Noblosh

So we were not using a figurative variant for to owe that means tracing the source of but the literal one.
Still if you'd stubbornly and unreasonably argue that I deny a dictionary's definition by dismissing its poor example then you'd have misunderstood, I don't deny owing one's fame to good fortune is a valid usage but that because of its figurative nature you can't subject it to reasoning in its literal form.
But that situation would be off the point anyway.

So... do you people really want a better discussion or do you just want me to stop challenging your beliefs?
Ah, relax, that was just a wild claim.

But what's nihilism value for you then?

Owing implies an obligation to reciprocate — Noblosh

Owing to the categorical stupidity of this declaration, I will not be attempting to engage with it. — unenlightened

Then why do it?

to owe: to be under obligation to pay or repay in return for something received
to reciprocate: to make a return for something

If you have nothing valuable to say, please don't.

Owing implies an obligation to reciprocate so unless you consider worship valid, there's no way to reciprocate so then owing a conceptual entity our selves makes no sense. Also, life is a condition, it can't be literally exchanged. If you're speaking figuratively, then please clarify.

But it does have sense, irrationality is indeed charming. — Noblosh

I'd say that it's silly. — Harry Hindu

Yes, but not nonsensical.

"Irrationality" and "fallacious reasoning" mean the same thing. — Harry Hindu

No, they don't, If I commit a fallacy then I'm misguided, not irrational.

I argue that arguing about irrationality is in itself irrational. — Noblosh

What do you mean? — Harry Hindu

Assessing accordingly to reason and logic something that doesn't conform to reason and logic, doesn't conform to reason and logic.

with the intent for others to read and make sense of — Harry Hindu

That's not sufficient to make it rational, again, it must conform to reason and logic.

I see she's also confusing anger with vengefulness. Seems to be a common misconception for some reason.

Personally, I'm with Doestovesky's Underground Man: "I admit that twice two makes four is an excellent thing, but if we are to give everything its due, twice two makes five is sometimes a very charming thing too." — Noble Dust
Nonsense. Really. — Harry Hindu

But it does have sense, irrationality is indeed charming.

If you intend to make sense, or find a consensus, or make some argument of how things are, then you must be rational. If not, then whatever you say is meaningless and contradictory. — Harry Hindu

Sure, argument implies rationality but irrationality is not meaningless and contradictory, you're confusing it with fallacious reasoning.

I argue that arguing about irrationality is in itself irrational.

On the contrary, determining our relation(s) with the world is at the core of assessing depression.

Why not worse or best? It would contradict the perpetual search for knowledge that is philosophy.

In what way should we even question rationality? In a rational way or?

The point of philosophy is achieving a better understanding of the world.

Deny definitions all you want but it's your position that I owe the world anything at stake here.

There are words and there are definitions for them. Do you want me to justify language?

Now who's being purposefully obnoxious?
earn: to come to be duly worthy of or entitled or suited to; to make worthy of or obtain for

Of course it does, worth is derived from what has been earned.

It's logical: if I never earned anything because everything was given to me, then I have no individual worth.

Please clarify.

If everything I have the world just gave me, then I have no individual worth and therefore my input is not even worthwhile, so again, why bother?

If I have everything already, why bother doing anything?

Philosophy is about making sense of the world, not about seeking happiness. With his iconic statement, Socrates rejects the validity of everything he knows so that he can engage in the perpetual search for knowledge that is philosophy.

I've just put forward an explanation on how irrational and dogmatic thinking may coexist with reasoning in people's minds, not on why there's no reason to speculate about divinity.

you didn't create yourself nor are you responsible entirely for who you are - so you have a duty to the world (which gave you everything) — Agustino

Doesn't follow. That's my main problem with your reasoning: you come up with unfounded imperatives.
We can owe none our existence because it is not received.

If the world owes me nothing then I owe the world nothing. I do not concern myself with that which doesn't reciprocate.

Frankly, I don't see how you could have missed it... — Lone Wolf

Dawkins didn't propose the theory of evolution, if you didn't know.

In your opinion Newton wasted his time on that particular project — Lone Wolf

He got no results from that particular endeavour thus he wasted his time.

I never questioned their intelligence or their influence but their irrational pursuits that got them nowhere. Religion needs evidence to support itself like any other dogma otherwise religious belief can't be sustained. Religious scientists don't do themselves, their scientific domain and science in general any favor by explaining their scientific discoveries as designed by divinity, they just create more confusion because of the incompatibilities that ensue.

I find it strange that one who seems to be against religion to ignore one of the most prominent atheists of the day. — Lone Wolf

Atheist? I definitely don't define myself like that. Why would I define myself by my skepticism towards the concept of divinity? I see myself beyond such concerns.
Dawkins is known for his antitheism instead, as in opposition to theism, which deals in sophistry. He may be famous but that doesn't make him an expert in anything else but his own rhetoric.

Yep, individuals would become overly reliant on AI. So it would look similar to communism with everyone having equal talents assuming all of the AI is of the same software. — JupiterJess

AI doesn't serve humanity, AI is a toolset. Not to mention an utopia is irrealizable...

Yes, but how can you not recognise the constraints you're under? Most people are very good at this part - too good. They always find the reasons why something can't be done. — Agustino

No, you mean they always invent reasons why something can't be done, coming up with constraints they're not actually under.

Your rhetoric suggests that willpower alone can break constraints one step at a time. But willpower has to take constraints into account when doing so, not theology.

You may negate any of your attempts at persuasion and may neither take advices nor complaints from me but your "God gave you that so you have the duty to" paradigm surely doesn't fool me.